I have really hard time swallowing the Conditional Reasoning section from PowerScore.

On page 116 of Logical Reasoning Bible it says...

"The sufficient condition does not make the necssary condition occur. "

and then...

"occurrence of the sufficient condition is a sign or indicator that the necessary cnodition will occur"

and on next page....

someone receiving an A+ (Sufficient) is a sign that indicates that studying(Necessary) must also have occurred.

and then.....

A+ (Sufficient) does not make the studying (Necessary) occur

In sum, does the sufficient condition make the necessary condition occur or NOT!!!?

Sufficient and necessary/conditional relationships do not NECESSARILY entail cause and effect. Conditional relationships are in large part different than cause and effect relationships, however, there is some overlap between the two types of basic logic.

With conditional relationships, the truth of the sufficient condition guarantees the truth of the necessary condition, logically speaking, but that does not mean that the occurrence of the sufficient condition caused the necessary condition to be true. One conditions truth REQUIRES the other to be true, but that does not mean that the sufficient condition came first and caused the necessary to be true. The order the two conditions became true in time (temporally) can go either way. It's just a matter of logical truth. If you know that A is true, then you can conclude that B is true, but absent other context or subject matter stuff the established relationship tells you nothing about causal or temporal relationships between the conditions.

Most of the time you're not going to have to worry about cause, whether it exists or not. About the only time cause matters is when there is a conclusion that either says or implies that A causes B. When that happens, you just have to check for a cause/correlation flaw, e.g., "People who eat 3oz of almonds per day tend to be thinner than people who don't, therefore almonds contribute to weight loss." Even in this example, you don't have to know whether the relationship is actually causal. The fact that the premise does not explicitly indicate cause is good enough to spot the flaw. Other than that kind of argument, you are unlikely to have to deal with causation vs. sufficiency.

So what I do is simply ignore the possibility of causation altogether and treat everything as a simple conditional, asking only, "what do I know?"

Consider two statements:

good grades --> studybullet to the brain --> death

The left is sufficient, and the right is necessary. I don't care that one of these statements is causal and the other is not. It doesn't matter (unless an argument draws a conclusion as in the example above). I treat them both as if they were the same type of statement:

If someone has good grades, what do I know? They studied. Good grades are sufficient to know there was study.

If someone has a bullet to the brain, I know they're meeting with death. Bullet to the brain is sufficient to know there is/was/will be death.